Clearly everyone should just let China do whatever they want to avoid war, if we appease them by expanding their territorial claims and avoiding conflict then surely everything will be fine. The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
Edit: Stop replying please, I don’t want to waste any more time arguing with y’all.
Wanting US empire to collapse is certainly not everything I am as a person. I guess some are only capable to see others are cartoonish cardboard cutouts as opposed to actual people.
I do have a bit of a clue about the world, the UK is not a vassal state of “the US Empire”. You’ve taken a goofy LARP that you’re some kind of revolutionary fighter up against an evil empire so far, that you’ve started to think your fantasy game is real.
It is the USA that has been the target of appeasement. Every expansion, every death squad, every war crime, every black site, every assassination, every war of aggression, every single time the world appeases the USA.
If you think the USA is appeasing China, your head is screwed on backwards. I know it’s a common trope for abusers to feel offended and attacked when their victims standup for themselves, and I know you probably stand with the victims and see through the abusers’ bullshit. You need to do that with the USA.
Abu Ghraib - appeased.
Nord Stream 2 - appeased.
Solemaini - appeased.
Iraq - appeased.
Iraq 2 - appeased.
Vietnam - appeased.
Laos - appeased.
Cambodia - appeased.
Korea - appeased.
Hiroshima - appeased.
Nagasaki - appeased.
Guantanamo - appeased.
Libya - appeased.
Syria - appeased.
StuxNet - appeased.
Pulling out of nuclear treaties - appeased.
Refusing to be accountable to ICC - appeased.
Refusing to sign landmine treaty - appeased.
Agent Orange - appeased.
Napalm - appeased.
White phosphorus - appeased.
Depleted Uranium - appeased.
Yugoslavia - appeased.
Afghanistan - appeased.
School of the Americas - appeased.
Wiretapping the entire US civilian population - appeased.
Wiretapping every embassy through Siemens supply chain attack - appeased.
NATO expansion - appeased.
Economic shock therapy kills millions - appeased.
Training terrorists - appeased.
Airlifting terrorists into other countries - appeased.
Environmental devastation - appeased.
Sending expired vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to send vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to follow the predefined protocol for sharing vaccine research - appeased.
Iranian regime change - appeased.
Color revolutions - appeased.
Extracting trillions from Africa - appeased.
Child separation - appeased.
Toddlers in solitary confinement - appeased.
Forced hysterectomies - appeased.
Collective punishment of civilians - appeased.
Support for Israeli apartheid - appeased.
Iran-Contra - appeased.
Fast and Furious - appeased.
CIA drug trafficking - appeased.
Haitian assassination - appeased.
Bolivia - appeased.
Nicaragua - appeased.
Pinochet - appeased.
Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet. But we’re capable of more nuance than “any country in opposition to the US can do no wrong”
Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?
And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.
My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.
What the fuck is wrong with you? The idea that the USA could possibly engage in appeasement is completely undermined by the fact that THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR WHO IS BEING APPEASED. When China pushes back against the USA they are not doing something wrong, they are doing something against the USA’s interests. When China doesn’t push back against the USA, they are appeasing.
The entire analysis of “oh everyone is bad and therefore the USA shouldn’t appease them” is completely structureless. It’s all moron vibes.
You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China’s territory, it is actually “CCP imperialism” if they react ;)
I would need to analyze the situation. The CPC has established it will not do this for any reason except to protect Chinese national security interests. If it turns out that the USA delivers advanced missile “defense” systems and other nuclear capabilities including submarines, air power, and other plaforms and assets, then it will be all but strategically certain that China will be forced to use military action to push the USA off the island and out of the surrounding waters.
Given the analysis of the Ukraine conflict, it’s possible that China may need to include other considerations that I am not fully up to speed on about American capabilities and American proxy war strategies.
In short, yes, I trust the CPC to only use military force when all other options for defense against the USA have been exhausted. This has been their policy and doctrine for a while and there are no indications of it changing anytime soon.
Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.
We do disagree, a lot. For example you think I believe that China is omnibenevolent. I don’t.
Another example, you think it’s possible to limit the power and influence of nationstates without simultaneously expanding the power and influence of nationstates. Exactly how do you think this is possible? Who, exactly, is going to limit the power and influence of China? After that power and influence is limited, what do you think will happen to the power and influence of others.
What you don’t seem to understand is that China is STILL going through the process of limiting the power and influence of the North Atlantic in China’s own physical location. The USA however, is busy limiting the power and influence of other nations in those nations’ physical locations. Pushing back against the North Atlantic is literally how you achieve the goal you say you want.
The idea of having checks and balances in an international world order that has spent the last 600 years dominating 80% of the world’s population with abject brutality and genocide required the expansion of power and influence of formerly oppressed states. Like it or not, you can’t just reduce the USA’s influence with vibes while the USA reduces China’s influence with nukes.
If the United States’s Union split in half tomorrow, then the power of the United States would be diminished. This would simultaneously strengthen every other nation state in comparison. So by limiting the power of the CCP, we reduce their ability to cause harm. It’s not a zero sum game between the US and China or even NATO and China. There are plenty of other people involved. This isn’t a video game. We are talking about people’s lives.
And yes, I also oppose NATO.
Anyways, I’m done with you. I have tried to build consensus and establish equal ground but you just refuse to admit that you made assumptions about me that were wrong. I don’t want to spend any more time talking to someone who won’t respect what I write enough to actually read it.
You realize that if country A does something bad, “Country B did something bad too!” is not actually a defense of country A’s behaviour? Indeed, it just implies that you agree that that behaviour is bad.
China isn’t doing something bad. The USA is an aggressor in the region and has been for decades. The USA took over for the French in Vietnam, and that goes back a long time. The USA took over from Japan in Korea, and that goes back awhile too. The USA is the active aggressor here. The idea that China pushing back against USA aggression could ever be considered appeasement is completely illogical.
What China is doing is not capable of being appeased. It would be like saying that if Nazi Germany left Poland alone because Poland was fighting back then Germany would be guilty of appeasing Poland. It’s moronic beyond fucking belief.
No. It’s not whataboutism, it’s evidence that your argument is illogical. The USA cannot possibly appease China because the USA is the one being appeased the world over. The USA is the Fourth Reich. When China opposes it, China is doing its part to create a future where the USA no longer can hurt the supermajority of the world’s people.
If this is bad behavior than what do you call the countless military exercises the US does all over the world as a show of force against other sovereign nations?
The reality is that doing a military exercise in your own backyard is required for national security. Look at a map some day. Tell me what’s wrong with China doing exercises off their own coast.
no, it’s off the coast of Taiwan, and there is no international consensus on Taiwan. Most countries have distinct foreign relations with Taiwan separate from China.
also, you know, caring what the people of Taiwan want, if that’s remotely a possibility for you.
why are you showing me excerpt’s from PRC’s constitution? Yeah, China claims Taiwan the same way Russia claims Ukraine, I dont care what the aggressor imperialist country thinks, I care what the people within the territory think. And what they wanted was to host a US official in their territory, and then China decided to threaten them. I get the impression folks in your circle have nothing but disdain for the people in Taiwan and dont care what they want.
That UN vote is not about Taiwan being a part of PRC, it’s about who represents ‘China’ in the UN.
That UN vote is not about Taiwan being a part of PRC, it’s about who represents ‘China’ in the UN.
Exactly, and the Taiwan Province is a part of CHINA, which is represented by the government in Beijing (PRC), before UNGAR 2758 it was represented by the government in Taipei (ROC).
“Taiwan” is not a country, regardless of one’s position on this they are either a province of the People’s Republic of China or of the Republic of China.
one country’s constitution doesnt get to decide the sovereignty of other nations. And that’s what you’ve shown me, plus an unrelated vote in the UN. Neither of these preclude Taiwan as a country. And ignoring the part about what the people within the territory of Taiwan want just confirms for me the inhuman view your circle has of people.
The only territorial claims China has tried to enforce recently are to literally uninhabited lands (Aksai Chin and the SCS islands) and Taiwan (which they are still at war with).
How much do you really care about a piece of rock with no people and no animals living on it?
So the CCP is full of idiots that are willing to weaken their international relations for a bunch of useless pieces of rock? Is that what you are saying?
These are the territorial claims of the government on Taiwan, from a state the US and much of the Western world support or at least de facto like to defend in Asia. They never made any remarks regarding Taiwan’s claims with 18 other countries. If the US supports peace in the Asia Pacific (besides looking at a map and asking why the US has even a say about Asia in the first place), then surely Mainland China must be supported, as by protecting & legitimizing Taiwan’s constitution, you’re approving this shit in Asia.
But let me guess, neoliberal countries get a pass from the crackerverse?
Holy shit, you’re telling me that both sides in a civil war think they should have full control of the country they’re in a civil war over? Hang on I need to sit fucking down my head is spinning
No, but if it weren’t for Western provocations that would never have been on the table. What do you think giving weapons to Taiwan does? China will not tolerate an arms buildup in Taiwain, it will attack as a result. That’s not good and I don’t support it, but that’s the material reality that you refuse to accept.
If the Taiwanese state would never capitulate and reintegrate peacefully with the CCP state, which is their claim, then wouldn’t that make an invasion of Taiwan inevitable, regardless of weapons?
Assume that it wouldn’t, though - I could just as easily say “with the right incentives, the United States could elect a communist president and transition to a people’s republic”, so let’s take them at their word that never means never and go from there, shall we?
No, I think you need to read my comment and your’s again. You say appeasement politics will lead to no good, so… you protect the ROC’s claims instead, which is even appeasing more that just leaving China. I caught your illogical argument, and distilled it to the meaningless content that it was. Now you pretend stupid to run away from that illogical claim. But you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
This is the most unbelievably embarrassing thing I have ever read on Lemmy. Honestly, if you regret writing this, please let me know. I will amend my comment to erase the fact you ever wrote it.
you protect the ROC’s claims
Please cite evidence of my support of Taiwan’s territorial claims. If you believe that opposing CCP imperialism means that one must also support Taiwanese territorial claims then you have made an incorrect assumption - and a converse error on your part does not constitute a failure on mine.
I’m very sorry that I refuse to defend the strawman you so thoughtfully prepared for me. By all means, whack away at him. I would suggest that you take your own advice, by the way, and read my actual comment and respond to the text of what I wrote, not some imagined subtext your Oxford-educated brain conjured to allay your cognitive dissonance. Oh, and one last thing - whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim “where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi”. Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China’s point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say “we can’t appease China blabla…” to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, “I’m commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla” or “Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan’s contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla…”. I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn’t actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China’s claim of Taiwan, an act of “CCP imperialism”. But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you’re critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can’t impossible speak of “CCP imperialism”, in the context of ROC’s claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
Well, if they are so democratic, and support other nations sovereignty as they would like their own, why don’t they remove them from their constitution? I have a feeling you have no idea of the ideology of the state on that island.
Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan. That’s their country. I asked for specific actions being taken by Taiwan to take territory from sovereign nations. What other claims are we appeasing? Has there been military action against Mongolia, or Japan, that we are hypocritically ignoring? What threat to other nation’s sovereignty are we ignoring from Taiwan?
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan
That’s not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying “as long as Taiwan want it’s island we support that, but not more than that”. In fact, I don’t know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no “Taiwan only” constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.
But they don’t do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the “will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island” is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can’t do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don’t make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it’s guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that’s beyond my point and the map above.)
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan, they still dont formally endorse their claims to Taiwan itself. So no. They dont support RoC’s constitution and as far as im aware have never commented on it.
Clearly everyone should just let China do whatever they want to avoid war, if we appease them by expanding their territorial claims and avoiding conflict then surely everything will be fine. The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
Edit: Stop replying please, I don’t want to waste any more time arguing with y’all.
Oh geez. This thread is great. Thanks for the laugh! 😂
Removed by mod
Isn’t is great when someone speaks and tells you everything about who they are as a person.
Wanting US empire to collapse is certainly not everything I am as a person. I guess some are only capable to see others are cartoonish cardboard cutouts as opposed to actual people.
The person you replied to is from the UK, so what are you going on about right now?
Evidently you don’t understand what the word empire means. UK is a vassal state of the US and part of the empire.
You literally live in a fantasy world.
You literally have no clue about the world if you genuinely think that.
I do have a bit of a clue about the world, the UK is not a vassal state of “the US Empire”. You’ve taken a goofy LARP that you’re some kind of revolutionary fighter up against an evil empire so far, that you’ve started to think your fantasy game is real.
It is the USA that has been the target of appeasement. Every expansion, every death squad, every war crime, every black site, every assassination, every war of aggression, every single time the world appeases the USA.
If you think the USA is appeasing China, your head is screwed on backwards. I know it’s a common trope for abusers to feel offended and attacked when their victims standup for themselves, and I know you probably stand with the victims and see through the abusers’ bullshit. You need to do that with the USA.
Abu Ghraib - appeased.
Nord Stream 2 - appeased.
Solemaini - appeased.
Iraq - appeased.
Iraq 2 - appeased.
Vietnam - appeased.
Laos - appeased.
Cambodia - appeased.
Korea - appeased.
Hiroshima - appeased.
Nagasaki - appeased.
Guantanamo - appeased.
Libya - appeased.
Syria - appeased.
StuxNet - appeased.
Pulling out of nuclear treaties - appeased.
Refusing to be accountable to ICC - appeased.
Refusing to sign landmine treaty - appeased.
Agent Orange - appeased.
Napalm - appeased.
White phosphorus - appeased.
Depleted Uranium - appeased.
Yugoslavia - appeased.
Afghanistan - appeased.
School of the Americas - appeased.
Wiretapping the entire US civilian population - appeased.
Wiretapping every embassy through Siemens supply chain attack - appeased.
NATO expansion - appeased.
Economic shock therapy kills millions - appeased.
Training terrorists - appeased.
Airlifting terrorists into other countries - appeased.
Environmental devastation - appeased.
Sending expired vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to send vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to follow the predefined protocol for sharing vaccine research - appeased.
Iranian regime change - appeased.
Color revolutions - appeased.
Extracting trillions from Africa - appeased.
Child separation - appeased.
Toddlers in solitary confinement - appeased.
Forced hysterectomies - appeased.
Collective punishment of civilians - appeased.
Support for Israeli apartheid - appeased.
Iran-Contra - appeased.
Fast and Furious - appeased.
CIA drug trafficking - appeased.
Haitian assassination - appeased.
Bolivia - appeased.
Nicaragua - appeased.
Pinochet - appeased.
I can keep going if you want.
Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet. But we’re capable of more nuance than “any country in opposition to the US can do no wrong”
Do you not believe in supporting the lesser evil? I thought libs loved that shit.
I’m not a lib. And no, I don’t believe in supporting the lesser evil. I don’t support any evil.
Oh sorry, you’re an ultra, my mistake.
How is it idealistically opposing everyone everywhere and never accomplishing anything?
Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?
And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.
Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.
Do you even support anything?
My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.
Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions?
What the fuck is wrong with you? The idea that the USA could possibly engage in appeasement is completely undermined by the fact that THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR WHO IS BEING APPEASED. When China pushes back against the USA they are not doing something wrong, they are doing something against the USA’s interests. When China doesn’t push back against the USA, they are appeasing.
The entire analysis of “oh everyone is bad and therefore the USA shouldn’t appease them” is completely structureless. It’s all moron vibes.
You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China’s territory, it is actually “CCP imperialism” if they react ;)
Thanks for your reply, before I address it, I have to ask, would you support it if the CCP government launched a military invasion of Taiwan?
deleted by creator
I would need to analyze the situation. The CPC has established it will not do this for any reason except to protect Chinese national security interests. If it turns out that the USA delivers advanced missile “defense” systems and other nuclear capabilities including submarines, air power, and other plaforms and assets, then it will be all but strategically certain that China will be forced to use military action to push the USA off the island and out of the surrounding waters.
Given the analysis of the Ukraine conflict, it’s possible that China may need to include other considerations that I am not fully up to speed on about American capabilities and American proxy war strategies.
In short, yes, I trust the CPC to only use military force when all other options for defense against the USA have been exhausted. This has been their policy and doctrine for a while and there are no indications of it changing anytime soon.
Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.
We do disagree, a lot. For example you think I believe that China is omnibenevolent. I don’t.
Another example, you think it’s possible to limit the power and influence of nationstates without simultaneously expanding the power and influence of nationstates. Exactly how do you think this is possible? Who, exactly, is going to limit the power and influence of China? After that power and influence is limited, what do you think will happen to the power and influence of others.
What you don’t seem to understand is that China is STILL going through the process of limiting the power and influence of the North Atlantic in China’s own physical location. The USA however, is busy limiting the power and influence of other nations in those nations’ physical locations. Pushing back against the North Atlantic is literally how you achieve the goal you say you want.
The idea of having checks and balances in an international world order that has spent the last 600 years dominating 80% of the world’s population with abject brutality and genocide required the expansion of power and influence of formerly oppressed states. Like it or not, you can’t just reduce the USA’s influence with vibes while the USA reduces China’s influence with nukes.
If the United States’s Union split in half tomorrow, then the power of the United States would be diminished. This would simultaneously strengthen every other nation state in comparison. So by limiting the power of the CCP, we reduce their ability to cause harm. It’s not a zero sum game between the US and China or even NATO and China. There are plenty of other people involved. This isn’t a video game. We are talking about people’s lives.
And yes, I also oppose NATO.
Anyways, I’m done with you. I have tried to build consensus and establish equal ground but you just refuse to admit that you made assumptions about me that were wrong. I don’t want to spend any more time talking to someone who won’t respect what I write enough to actually read it.
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.
You realize that if country A does something bad, “Country B did something bad too!” is not actually a defense of country A’s behaviour? Indeed, it just implies that you agree that that behaviour is bad.
Moron vibes.
China isn’t doing something bad. The USA is an aggressor in the region and has been for decades. The USA took over for the French in Vietnam, and that goes back a long time. The USA took over from Japan in Korea, and that goes back awhile too. The USA is the active aggressor here. The idea that China pushing back against USA aggression could ever be considered appeasement is completely illogical.
What China is doing is not capable of being appeased. It would be like saying that if Nazi Germany left Poland alone because Poland was fighting back then Germany would be guilty of appeasing Poland. It’s moronic beyond fucking belief.
No. It’s not whataboutism, it’s evidence that your argument is illogical. The USA cannot possibly appease China because the USA is the one being appeased the world over. The USA is the Fourth Reich. When China opposes it, China is doing its part to create a future where the USA no longer can hurt the supermajority of the world’s people.
Fuck your liberal brain rot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan
If this is bad behavior than what do you call the countless military exercises the US does all over the world as a show of force against other sovereign nations?
The reality is that doing a military exercise in your own backyard is required for national security. Look at a map some day. Tell me what’s wrong with China doing exercises off their own coast.
No these were off Taiwan’s coast.
Which is a) literally off the coast of China and b) internationally recognized as China’s sovereign territory
no, it’s off the coast of Taiwan, and there is no international consensus on Taiwan. Most countries have distinct foreign relations with Taiwan separate from China.
also, you know, caring what the people of Taiwan want, if that’s remotely a possibility for you.
Military exercises on their own territory as recognized by the United Nations and almost every single country on Earth? What is the issue here?
The Taiwan Province is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China:
And this is recognized by the United Nations ever since 1971 after UNGAR 2758.
Source, page 546: https://web.archive.org/web/20230503050030/https://legal.un.org/unjuridicalyearbook/pdfs/english/volumes/2010.pdf
Video of the votes happening: https://invidious.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=sfOIEjuXFyU
why are you showing me excerpt’s from PRC’s constitution? Yeah, China claims Taiwan the same way Russia claims Ukraine, I dont care what the aggressor imperialist country thinks, I care what the people within the territory think. And what they wanted was to host a US official in their territory, and then China decided to threaten them. I get the impression folks in your circle have nothing but disdain for the people in Taiwan and dont care what they want.
That UN vote is not about Taiwan being a part of PRC, it’s about who represents ‘China’ in the UN.
Exactly, and the Taiwan Province is a part of CHINA, which is represented by the government in Beijing (PRC), before UNGAR 2758 it was represented by the government in Taipei (ROC).
“Taiwan” is not a country, regardless of one’s position on this they are either a province of the People’s Republic of China or of the Republic of China.
one country’s constitution doesnt get to decide the sovereignty of other nations. And that’s what you’ve shown me, plus an unrelated vote in the UN. Neither of these preclude Taiwan as a country. And ignoring the part about what the people within the territory of Taiwan want just confirms for me the inhuman view your circle has of people.
The only territorial claims China has tried to enforce recently are to literally uninhabited lands (Aksai Chin and the SCS islands) and Taiwan (which they are still at war with).
How much do you really care about a piece of rock with no people and no animals living on it?
So the CCP is full of idiots that are willing to weaken their international relations for a bunch of useless pieces of rock? Is that what you are saying?
Damn Taiwan is a piece of rock with no people on it?
Can you explain to the crowd how you felt comfortable enough to pretend that the country of Taiwan is a barren rock without any people living on it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
These are the territorial claims of the government on Taiwan, from a state the US and much of the Western world support or at least de facto like to defend in Asia. They never made any remarks regarding Taiwan’s claims with 18 other countries. If the US supports peace in the Asia Pacific (besides looking at a map and asking why the US has even a say about Asia in the first place), then surely Mainland China must be supported, as by protecting & legitimizing Taiwan’s constitution, you’re approving this shit in Asia.
But let me guess, neoliberal countries get a pass from the crackerverse?
Holy shit, you’re telling me that both sides in a civil war think they should have full control of the country they’re in a civil war over? Hang on I need to sit fucking down my head is spinning
Civil war is when two sides of a nonviolent conflict peacefully negotiate reintegration.
Better send weapons to Taiwan!
Here’s a question for you: would you support a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan?
No, but if it weren’t for Western provocations that would never have been on the table. What do you think giving weapons to Taiwan does? China will not tolerate an arms buildup in Taiwain, it will attack as a result. That’s not good and I don’t support it, but that’s the material reality that you refuse to accept.
If the Taiwanese state would never capitulate and reintegrate peacefully with the CCP state, which is their claim, then wouldn’t that make an invasion of Taiwan inevitable, regardless of weapons?
Never is a long time and, with the right incentives, that stance can be changed peacefully.
Assume that it wouldn’t, though - I could just as easily say “with the right incentives, the United States could elect a communist president and transition to a people’s republic”, so let’s take them at their word that never means never and go from there, shall we?
No, I think you need to read my comment and your’s again. You say appeasement politics will lead to no good, so… you protect the ROC’s claims instead, which is even appeasing more that just leaving China. I caught your illogical argument, and distilled it to the meaningless content that it was. Now you pretend stupid to run away from that illogical claim. But you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
This is the most unbelievably embarrassing thing I have ever read on Lemmy. Honestly, if you regret writing this, please let me know. I will amend my comment to erase the fact you ever wrote it.
Please cite evidence of my support of Taiwan’s territorial claims. If you believe that opposing CCP imperialism means that one must also support Taiwanese territorial claims then you have made an incorrect assumption - and a converse error on your part does not constitute a failure on mine.
I’m very sorry that I refuse to defend the strawman you so thoughtfully prepared for me. By all means, whack away at him. I would suggest that you take your own advice, by the way, and read my actual comment and respond to the text of what I wrote, not some imagined subtext your Oxford-educated brain conjured to allay your cognitive dissonance. Oh, and one last thing - whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim “where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi”. Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China’s point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say “we can’t appease China blabla…” to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, “I’m commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla” or “Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan’s contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla…”. I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn’t actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China’s claim of Taiwan, an act of “CCP imperialism”. But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you’re critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
This is the real strawman in this thread.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
Then next, guess where I did my PhD.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can’t impossible speak of “CCP imperialism”, in the context of ROC’s claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
It was funny, thanks for that.
oh my god he’s got the 1’s mixed in with exclamation marks, god thats old school childish
deleted by creator
Holy fucking cringe, if I was the CCP propaganda office I would want my money back.
What actions have they taken in pursuit of these supposed claims?
Well, if they are so democratic, and support other nations sovereignty as they would like their own, why don’t they remove them from their constitution? I have a feeling you have no idea of the ideology of the state on that island.
So no actions needing attention like we’re giving to China for threatening the sovereignty of other independent nations.
Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan. That’s their country. I asked for specific actions being taken by Taiwan to take territory from sovereign nations. What other claims are we appeasing? Has there been military action against Mongolia, or Japan, that we are hypocritically ignoring? What threat to other nation’s sovereignty are we ignoring from Taiwan?
That’s not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying “as long as Taiwan want it’s island we support that, but not more than that”. In fact, I don’t know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no “Taiwan only” constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.
But they don’t do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the “will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island” is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can’t do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don’t make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it’s guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that’s beyond my point and the map above.)
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan, they still dont formally endorse their claims to Taiwan itself. So no. They dont support RoC’s constitution and as far as im aware have never commented on it.